My son took a gun to school yesterday...

[SteveInAshand]

imported post

JDriver1.8t wrote:

Babyglock 2 wrote:

I think that children are safer being home schooled because you do not know what the teacher is really like when you are not in the room...

The only problem I have with home school is this:

Unless parents make an effort to have their children interact with others, possibly also home shooled, then children learn some fundamental social skills. This isn't garunteed, but I have witnessed it on multiple occasions. Again, not always going to happen, but children can loose on friendships and some social skills if they don't get to interact with the wide variety of people in schools.

I am a fan of when parents get together to home school a group of kids, and a few parents work together to teach all the subjects. Even 3 parents and 20 kids is awesome andI have seen this system work fantastically.

I like the idea of getting multiple parents together who think alike to school the children outside of the socialist system, and socialize them.

FYI, BabyGlock is a single mom of 2 older teen son's neither of whom are drug users, anti social's , or delinquents.

Her X is a SF wine sipping snob who desnt work ( rich dad ) & liberal p***y

BabyGlock's ideas and ideals are her very own, they are based in real life and a seekers heart, they are not coming from a Taliban husband or cult leader overlord authority in any way.

She owns her own single person buisness and takes no welfair or anything from anyone.

She home schooled her boy's to keep them from being brain washed by the cowards who dged the draft in the 60's and now are tenured professiors and Marxist socialists.

 

[Aran]

imported post

She's still insane.

Edit: Actually, re-reading your reply, so are you.

 

[Squid13]

imported post

I call it the pussification of America. And that has little to do with actual gender issues. It's just a term we as modern americans would associate with a weakness in men. There are differences in men and women, and anyone that wants to deny that based on the idea of equality, doesn't understand the concept. You can have equal rights and be different. In fact, you have no choice but to be different. Men, a few exceptions aside, are not women. We act differently. We think differently. And we should fill different roles in both the family and society as a whole. If BabyGlock chooses todefine her role as a woman in a manner that is acceptable to her and her husband, where is the problem? If we all agree that society is screwed up today, even if we don't agree on the exact why, how can we say that someone's oppinion or worldview is outdated? Maybe the person living in the 1930's is on the right track. I'm not saying that's the case, but think about it. Was America perfect before WWII? No. Of course it wasn't. Was it better than today? Having not been around at the time, I'd still be hard pressed to say it wasn't.

Stand up to these teachers. Teach your children what you believe to be right even if you publicly educate them. Defend them when they are in the right, but don't enable them to do wrong. Talk to other parents. Take personal responsibility for the upbringing of your family and your community.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Squid13 wrote:

I call it the pussification of America. And that has little to do with actual gender issues. It's just a term we as modern americans would associate with a weakness in men. There are differences in men and women, and anyone that wants to deny that based on the idea of equality, doesn't understand the concept. You can have equal rights and be different. In fact, you have no choice but to be different. Men, a few exceptions aside, are not women. We act differently. We think differently. And we should fill different roles in both the family and society as a whole. If BabyGlock chooses todefine her role as a woman in a manner that is acceptable to her and her husband, where is the problem? If we all agree that society is screwed up today, even if we don't agree on the exact why, how can we say that someone's opinion or world view is outdated? Maybe the person living in the 1930's is on the right track. I'm not saying that's the case, but think about it. Was America perfect before WWII? No. Of course it wasn't. Was it better than today? Having not been around at the time, I'd still be hard pressed to say it wasn't.

Stand up to these teachers. Teach your children what you believe to be right even if you publicly educate them. Defend them when they are in the right, but don't enable them to do wrong. Talk to other parents. Take personal responsibility for the upbringing of your family and your community.

In general I don't outright disagree with what you have said, with the possible exception of your choice of labels, because implicit in that label are a lot of unstated concepts that are false.

But here is the deal IMO for the topic of this thread.

Teaching is not a sex based activity. If only women could do it then there would be no male teachers at any level of teaching.Having larger mammary glands does not improve teaching skills any more than having a penis detracts from those skills. So the idea that I or anyone else would be taken to the woodshed for suggesting that either parent could stay home to school the children is just stupid. But to be called out using terms that are clearly homophobic rhetoric from a fringe source says more about the person using the term than it doesthe person who was assaulted with it.

The difference in the sexes is actually supportive of the concept of a partnership. A partnership implies a division of duties based on skills, and/or physical ability not a feminine male or a masculine female. An frankly while people that see it that way are free to hold that opinion, they will have to learn to live with the fact that others may not share their archaic view of life or the world.

Frankly, I don't really care what Babyglocks story is, in my view (s)he seriously overreacted to the suggestion that a man might stay home and teach his children. Hidden in that response is the concept that the male has nothing of value to teach his children, and I reject that concept in its entirety. There is nothing in the suggestion that a man could teach his children that requires a man to be less of a man or a woman to be less of a woman.

Moreover the reaction expressed a view of the world that is at best from the outer fringe of our society. Not necessarily wrong, just a seriously minor view. If a person wants to hold that view and use it to attack others fine, but (s)he will have to accept that there might be an unfriendly response with a different view. Welcome to life in the larger world.

 

[Squid13]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

In general I don't outright disagree with what you have said, with the possible exception of your choice of labels, because implicit in that label are a lot of unstated concepts that are false.

But here is the deal IMO for the topic of this thread.

Teaching is not a sex based activity. If only women could do it then there would be no male teachers at any level of teaching.Having larger mammary glands does not improve teaching skills any more than having a penis detracts from those skills. So the idea that I or anyone else would be taken to the woodshed for suggesting that either parent could stay home to school the children is just stupid. But to be called out using terms that are clearly homophobic rhetoric from a fringe source says more about the person using the term than it doesthe person who was assaulted with it.

The difference in the sexes is actually supportive of the concept of a partnership. A partnership implies a division of duties based on skills, and/or physical ability not a feminine male or a masculine female. An frankly while people that see it that way are free to hold that opinion, they will have to learn to live with the fact that others may not share their archaic view of life or the world.

Frankly, I don't really care what Babyglocks story is, in my view (s)he seriously overreacted to the suggestion that a man might stay home and teach his children. Hidden in that response is the concept that the male has nothing of value to teach his children, and I reject that concept in its entirety. There is nothing in the suggestion that a man could teach his children that requires a man to be less of a man or a woman to be less of a woman.

Moreover the reaction expressed a view of the world that is at best from the outer fringe of our society. Not necessarily wrong, just a seriously minor view. If a person wants to hold that view and use it to attack others fine, but (s)he will have to accept that there might be an unfriendly response with a different view. Welcome to life in the larger world.

Well noted. I felt like one side of the argument, note I didn't say debate, was getting more flack than the other. I don't so much think that either side was making direct arguments. BabyGlock probably wasn't trying to imply that a man would be less of a teacher, and you were'nt likely saying that men and women are the same. There were also obvious overreactions on both sides of the fence. This is where I felt the need to butt in. Grow some thicker skin people! If I say a woman's place is in the home, and it offends you, too bad! If I say you're a crazy socialist, and it offends you, deal with it! Mind you, I never said either aside from forming an arguing point.

If someone resorts to open insults then they are reacting like the common gun-grabber. Don't respond with same. You've hit a nerve and logic is out the window. Either ignore them, or try to redirect the discussion to the original topic using sound logic.

 

[SteveInAshand]

imported post

Aran wrote:

She's still insane.

Edit: Actually, re-reading your reply, so are you.

Ya , well one persons insane is another insightful, she is insane enough to think that :
1) Obama is a Marxist socialist & a con man
2) Liberalism is a mental disorder ( thank U Micheal Savage)
3) We are our brothers keeper ( un-armed old folks, children & people in general.
4) the founding Fathers were a special and divinely inspired lot.
5) Bill Of Rights is easy enough to understand & don't need fixing or interpitation.
6) OC is a right & a specal respocibility she takes very seriously.
7) men should be men and stop catering to women for the acceptance.
8) there is no greater sacrifice for freedom & liberty than a soldier who lays down his ( or her ) life in service to Our country.

she is insane, right ?:X

 

[.40 Cal]

imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:

Aran wrote:

She's still insane.

Edit: Actually, re-reading your reply, so are you.

Ya , well one persons insane is another insightful, she is insane enough to think that :
1) Obama is a Marxist socialist & a con man
2) Liberalism is a mental disorder ( thank U Micheal Savage)
3) We are our brothers keeper ( un-armed old folks, children & people in general.
4) the founding Fathers were a special and divinely inspired lot.
5) Bill Of Rights is easy enough to understand & don't need fixing or interpitation.
6) OC is a right & a specal respocibility she takes very seriously.
7) men should be men and stop catering to women for the acceptance.
8) there is no greater sacrifice for freedom & liberty than a soldier who lays down his ( or her ) life in service to Our country.

she is insane, right ?:X

If that makes her insane, call me Randall Patrick McMurphy!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:

1) Obama is a Marxist socialist & a con man
2) Liberalism is a mental disorder ( thank U Micheal Savage)
3) We are our brothers keeper  ( un-armed old folks, children & people in general.
4) the founding Fathers were a special and divinely inspired lot.
5)  Bill Of Rights is  easy enough to understand & don't need fixing or interpitation.
6) OC is a right & a specal respocibility [sic] she takes very seriously.
7) men should be men and stop catering to women for the acceptance.
8) there is no greater sacrifice for freedom  & liberty than a soldier who lays down his ( or her ) life in service to Our country.

she is insane, right  ?:X

:uhoh:

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Does that mean my personal hero Thomas Jefferson possessed a divinely inspired mental disorder? :lol:

You know, him having been a liberal and all... :quirky

 

[darthmord]

imported post

Having been a stay-at-home Dad for a few years before going back to work, I would strongly disagree with anyone who implies or otherwise hints or suggests that males have nothing to teach children.

Academically, I excelled in school. I also was dissatisfied with what school *would* teach me. I chose to teach myself about more subjects and in greater detail than the schools would ALLOW. Public libraries and the advent of the Internet (after I became an adult) were wonderful things for me.

So me staying at home was a no-brainer in terms of being beneficial for the kids. After a few months, it became apparent their behavior was improving, academically they were starting to excel and they were better understanding lessons learned in school AND at home.

I would give almost anything to be a stay-at-home Dad again. Best job I ever had. The hours sucked. The pay was abyssmal. But I had plenty of free time and the bonuses were nice. There is no greater bonus to be had than having your child(ren) thank you for being there.

I still make every attempt to assist and help because I'm Dad. I also made sure they learned proper firearm handling & safety so they are not a danger to themselves or others. You know what? I still get those bonuses even though I'm no longer a stay-at-home Dad.

No, males & females both have lessons that need to be taught to children. Each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses. Teaching is NOTeither of those.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Does that mean my personal hero Thomas Jefferson possessed a divinely inspired mental disorder? :lol:

You know, him having been a liberal and all... :quirky

Those who use the term "liberal" in a derisive manner don't know what it actually means, they just know what they have been told it means: the current cultural meaning of it: (aka, "neo-liberal").

They never will either, unless they are educated. I will give them a hint to start: the root-word basis for "liberal" is "liberty" (or both words are based in the same root word, if you want to get really technical).

 

[Squid13]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Does that mean my personal hero Thomas Jefferson possessed a divinely inspired mental disorder? :lol:

You know, him having been a liberal and all... :quirky

Those who use the term "liberal" in a derisive manner don't know what it actually means, they just know what they have been told it means: the current cultural meaning of it: (aka, "neo-liberal").

They never will either, unless they are educated. I will give them a hint to start: the root-word basis for "liberal" is "liberty" (or both words are based in the same root word, if you want to get really technical).

+1!!!

I hate hearing liberal used as a four letter word. My views for the most part are way left. The far left end of the political spectrum is a total lack of government, and thus total individual freedom. Nowdays, and on this board, people use liberal to imply a government that takes away all of our individual rights. Though that may be how the modern American liberal leans, it isn't indicative of the origins of the word.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

Having been a stay-at-home Dad for a few years before going back to work, I would strongly disagree with anyone who implies or otherwise hints or suggests that males have nothing to teach children.

Academically, I excelled in school. I also was dissatisfied with what school *would* teach me. I chose to teach myself about more subjects and in greater detail than the schools would ALLOW. Public libraries and the advent of the Internet (after I became an adult) were wonderful things for me.

So me staying at home was a no-brainer in terms of being beneficial for the kids. After a few months, it became apparent their behavior was improving, academically they were starting to excel and they were better understanding lessons learned in school AND at home.

I would give almost anything to be a stay-at-home Dad again. Best job I ever had. The hours sucked. The pay was abyssmal. But I had plenty of free time and the bonuses were nice. There is no greater bonus to be had than having your child(ren) thank you for being there.

I still make every attempt to assist and help because I'm Dad. I also made sure they learned proper firearm handling & safety so they are not a danger to themselves or others. You know what? I still get those bonuses even though I'm no longer a stay-at-home Dad.

No, males & females both have lessons that need to be taught to children. Each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses. Teaching is NOTeither of those.

+1

 

[wrightme]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

I still make every attempt to assist and help because I'm Dad. I also made sure they learned proper firearm handling & safety so they are not a danger to themselves or others. You know what? I still get those bonuses even though I'm no longer a stay-at-home Dad.

+1 and more.

My son used to be annoyed with me for teaching him to keep his finger off the trigger on his toy plastic dart guns in his early years. This photo of him at 10 in a pistol match shows the value of beginning the safety training at an early age.

And I definitely drill in to him to not take something like this one to school....

 

[darthmord]

imported post

My kids will actually post a guard on the unattended firearm while one of them goes and gets a responsible adult. Their idea no less.

Likewise, my eldest was annoyed that when she first started shooting at the range that I harped on 'finger on the trigger'. I stopped her and pointed out a specific hole in some metal shielding at the range and explained how that one in particular got there; someone's meaty digit was on the trigger while the firearm was NOT on target (was shooting with co-worker and they weren't careful. They ended up with an AD into the sheetmetal cover for a vent).

She doesn't keep her finger on the trigger anymore unless she's pointing the gun directly at the target.

Sometimes the 'Why' behind the 'What' is required.

 

[BabyGlock]

imported post

JDriver1.8t wrote:

Babyglock 2 wrote:

I think that children are safer being home schooled because you do not know what the teacher is really like when you are not in the room...

The only problem I have with home school is this:

Unless parents make an effort to have their children interact with others, possibly also home shooled, then children learn some fundamental social skills. This isn't garunteed, but I have witnessed it on multiple occasions. Again, not always going to happen, but children can loose on friendships and some social skills if they don't get to interact with the wide variety of people in schools.

I am a fan of when parents get together to home school a group of kids, and a few parents work together to teach all the subjects. Even 3 parents and 20 kids is awesome andI have seen this system work fantastically.

The more well rounded the parents are, the better off the children...

 

[PaulBlart]

imported post

Nozoki wrote:

SteveInAshand wrote:

ALL liberals are sheep and sheep are not as brave as a man grounded in logic and God, ( logic will suffice for you atheists)

As a gun owning, logically thinking Liberal, I take offense to this statement. In fact, every single one of my Liberal friends is either a gun owner, or very supportive of the practice. Not everyone that doesn't vote the way you do is a bed-wetting coward that is "easily brainwashed". And we all agree that these stupid zero tolerance rules are a bad idea all around.

no one believes you.

i'm sure you believe in big govt nanny state. no real man would allow anyone else, or the govt control and dictate his life

 

[BabyGlock]

imported post

Aran wrote:

She's still insane.

Edit: Actually, re-reading your reply, so are you.

Ouch....

 

[BabyGlock]

imported post

Squid13 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

In general I don't outright disagree with what you have said, with the possible exception of your choice of labels, because implicit in that label are a lot of unstated concepts that are false.

But here is the deal IMO for the topic of this thread.

Teaching is not a sex based activity. If only women could do it then there would be no male teachers at any level of teaching.Having larger mammary glands does not improve teaching skills any more than having a penis detracts from those skills. So the idea that I or anyone else would be taken to the woodshed for suggesting that either parent could stay home to school the children is just stupid. But to be called out using terms that are clearly homophobic rhetoric from a fringe source says more about the person using the term than it doesthe person who was assaulted with it.

The difference in the sexes is actually supportive of the concept of a partnership. A partnership implies a division of duties based on skills, and/or physical ability not a feminine male or a masculine female. An frankly while people that see it that way are free to hold that opinion, they will have to learn to live with the fact that others may not share their archaic view of life or the world.

Frankly, I don't really care what Babyglocks story is, in my view (s)he seriously overreacted to the suggestion that a man might stay home and teach his children. Hidden in that response is the concept that the male has nothing of value to teach his children, and I reject that concept in its entirety. There is nothing in the suggestion that a man could teach his children that requires a man to be less of a man or a woman to be less of a woman.

Moreover the reaction expressed a view of the world that is at best from the outer fringe of our society. Not necessarily wrong, just a seriously minor view. If a person wants to hold that view and use it to attack others fine, but (s)he will have to accept that there might be an unfriendly response with a different view. Welcome to life in the larger world.

Well noted. I felt like one side of the argument, note I didn't say debate, was getting more flack than the other. I don't so much think that either side was making direct arguments. BabyGlock probably wasn't trying to imply that a man would be less of a teacher, and you were'nt likely saying that men and women are the same. There were also obvious overreactions on both sides of the fence. This is where I felt the need to butt in. Grow some thicker skin people! If I say a woman's place is in the home, and it offends you, too bad! If I say you're a crazy socialist, and it offends you, deal with it! Mind you, I never said either aside from forming an arguing point.

If someone resorts to open insults then they are reacting like the common gun-grabber. Don't respond with same. You've hit a nerve and logic is out the window. Either ignore them, or try to redirect the discussion to the original topic using sound logic.

Mr. squid 13,

First of all, you are great!
I was never implying that men could not teach.
I was just saying that men should not stay home and let their wife work, that is all.
Mr. Hawkflyer was offended by something that I did not say or mean in any way.

This is basically the first post that I have ever responded to and I got attacked by a lot of people.
Boy, was I initiated fast! I have good solid opinions and felt I needed to defend myself as best I could.
It is difficult sometimes to express yourself but I did my best.
Just because this is an open carry site does not mean the guys that read this should be cruel or rude.
My opinion again is good and solid.
I admit that this is really great fun and I wish you all the best!

babyglock

 

[BabyGlock]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

darthmord wrote:

Having been a stay-at-home Dad for a few years before going back to work, I would strongly disagree with anyone who implies or otherwise hints or suggests that males have nothing to teach children.

Academically, I excelled in school. I also was dissatisfied with what school *would* teach me. I chose to teach myself about more subjects and in greater detail than the schools would ALLOW. Public libraries and the advent of the Internet (after I became an adult) were wonderful things for me.

So me staying at home was a no-brainer in terms of being beneficial for the kids. After a few months, it became apparent their behavior was improving, academically they were starting to excel and they were better understanding lessons learned in school AND at home.

I would give almost anything to be a stay-at-home Dad again. Best job I ever had. The hours sucked. The pay was abyssmal. But I had plenty of free time and the bonuses were nice. There is no greater bonus to be had than having your child(ren) thank you for being there.

I still make every attempt to assist and help because I'm Dad. I also made sure they learned proper firearm handling & safety so they are not a danger to themselves or others. You know what? I still get those bonuses even though I'm no longer a stay-at-home Dad.

No, males & females both have lessons that need to be taught to children. Each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses. Teaching is NOTeither of those.

+1

Let me set the record straight....

I never said men can not teach children..,

I obviously struck a major nerve...